Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive254

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 23 August 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

Ye gods[edit]

LOVE thisimg. The Greek gods comparison is inspired, both for the random nature of their taking offence and the specific name comparisons. (We could have fun coming up with god names for all the other admins, if there were any left.)-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I like his choice of Poseidon - God of the sea - for the hypothetical sysop who is obviously Karajou. ONE / TALK 14:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
So next time Karajou blocks you as a sock of AmesG, remember: CURSE YOU, MERCIFUL POSEIDON! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm now picturing User:Conservative as Pan, frolicking around with goat's legs and playing his panpipes. Olé indeed.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 14:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So who is doing[edit]

thisimg? Not from here I'm sure but does anyone think they are serious? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Stupidity, nothing more.--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh for sure, but there does seem to have been an upswing in new (and frequently promptly blocked) registrations over the past few weeks. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)'
Chances are it will be vandalism, nothing more. not even good vandalism --Mikalos209 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
He's organizing raids, maybe he's with /b/?--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going with: It's one of Ken's socks. Well, okay, maybe not. Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. But you gotta feel sorry for JCW and Jimmy having to revert that crap...without rollback. 4chan?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the /b/tards at 4chan could get organized (or motivated) enough to take down CP. They're more interested in rallying against child porn (coincidentally, also CP). RWikians could probably coordinate an effective assault, but I've heard no talk of one being launched. Professor (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It was my impression they planned to unleash the old wiki fallback attack of Vandalism. not a full on attack.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Most likely someone's just bullshitting that they have an army of vandals ready to attack. It's not the first time. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
He probably went to /b/ and posted the conservapedia logo, screaming attack, only to be met with "meh" or silence. --Mikalos209 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
yepimg the last chance!--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Tangent: Block Reform/Review Panel[edit]

This will be a good test of User:Conservatives blocking review panel; as some contribute to mainspace, then get caught up in one of Karajou's bad moods where he just blocks from habit. Then one by one they Appeal. As the hand picked review panel discusses each case, with no methods developed to come to a decision, another wave of vandalism strikes. User:Conservative was pointedly excluded from the early sysop discussion groups. We've tried a blocking review panel then, it didn't work. You'd think Andy would have the courtesy to tell Ken, but he was just as disengaged then as now. And Karajou is probably just too fucking stupid to remember. He doesn't care anyways, he's looking forward to a big blocking binge. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright, Rob, I'm calling it. YOU ARE RETARDED, or YOU ARE A GIANT TROLL. Perhaps both. Against all evidence to the contrary, you really want to believe that it may be possible that some sort of review panel will get together on CP, will be run by Conservative, and will function as a way to make blocking more just and even-handed, and this after you yourself spent years on the wiki doing nothing to make its insane block policy more functional until about a month ago, and got banned for the process. Amazing. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 23:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
We're gonna see justice, User:Conservative style. He promised this reform will be more fair to users. He's personally asked volunteers to contribute their time to help administer justice. He'll have a record to live by now. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 23:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You're amazing. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 23:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC*FUCKING INFINITY)I kinda don't think that Karajou actually realizes that Ken is aiming for a Block Review Panel (he was absolutely opposed to it when PJR challenged a few bans in the Conservaleaks). Either that, or he's hoping to steamroll over it in some way. Would be kinda hilarious if Ken was suddenly sitting next to you on the Ex-Sysop bench, watching as Kara and his army of parodists rant about that damn liberal atheist parodist who tried to cause trouble. And don't get too excited just yet - this is just the panel to discuss the reforms, not the panel that will review blocks... I think - it's hard to follow Ken's train of thought. --Sid (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Rob, you know that ken is completely incapable of honesty. Even if a blocking policy is created as soon as ken needs to break the rules he will and then oversight the lot and pretend it never happened. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 23:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is this in the section about the slowest vandal attack ever?--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
We got a bit derailed. I've added a subheader to reflect this. --Sid (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Ken has repeatedly said his ideas on blocking are somewhere between Karajou and RobS (read:Andy delegated it to us). So Ken agrees with me and virtually all ratvandals that Karajou is heavy handed. The guy's prejudices are just on autopilot. He blocks and reverts without thinking. Look here, he reverts himself 3 minutes later after thinking, "hey, maybe I shouldn't have done that".
What CP needs is Sysop Review, not blocking review. They need to look at the sysop actions, not the blocked user. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh huh. Why are you telling us this? Most of us know how real wikis work.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
why? They just got rid of the only sysop who doesn't do exactly what he's supposed to. The remaining corps of sysops seem to do exactly what Andy wants them to. What is there to review? B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 00:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, I haven't edited Andy's entry here yet, but have KenDoll & Karajou. I have called Andy an idiot on wigo, and sent him an email moments after blocking me calling him a wimp. But I'm not really intent on disparaging the man, I'm just citing that I've come to be in agreement on somethings some of his critics say. I tried to dissuage attacks on the man in Wikipedia last year (see WP dispute in Conservaleaks, "Conservapedia related entries"), but he insulted me by crushing any attempt by me to defend my name and character which was viciously defamed by his hand-picked anonymous trolls on his website. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 00:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy's options here Rob: Defend you and lose Ken and Kara, possibly every other SySop as the revelation they no longer live in a Feudal Monarchy. Or option two: Lose you and everything else stays the same. Which seems like a more successful option when you don't include everything else?--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
CP viewship is good in election years. Andy may need me on the Main Page. I'm the best headline writer they got. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 00:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If thats your only reason your piss poor aa arguments.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Rob, do you honestly believe that conservatives are looking at CP's headlines (which are just reblogged from more popular sites or TerryH's rants) in an election year? Do you seriously believe that CP has any sort of influence? If your answers are yes, and they seem to be, I'll briefly borrow Fermi's famous question: "Where is everybody?"
This is a problem that goes all the way back to 2007, when Andy claimed that CP was a big success and that countless homeschoolers and others were learning from it (the same argument was made by Ken with his Evolution "article"). I call it the "Invisible and Silent Majority". If CP has influence and readership, why doesn't anybody recommend CP? Where is all the praise? (And no, Ken's link exchange deals with Peter Lababababa, Shockofgod, Mariano, etc. don't count - and neither do his socking sprees on atheism/evolution forums or TerryH's Examiner posts.) Even Ed "You are in error. No-one is screaming." Poor occasionally noted that CP failed to attract influential conservatives. And Ken told you during the Wikipedia Trainwreck 2010 that the root of the problem was the lack of positive reviews by Reliable Sources.
So while I go to bed and sleep, maybe ponder why that is so. But since I'm helpful, here are two hints: one and Okay, I lied twoFuck it, too many to choose from --Sid (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
C'mon now, Sid, you gotta admit, I'm the best headline writer CP's got. My stuff is usually quicker and wittier than any of that other crap those guys put up. Time and again, I've had a really good quick witticism to put in a headline, that some idiot like Ken, or Andy, or Terry beat me to, with some monotone rambling rant they themselves couldn't comprehend. And because of CP lack of cooperation and organization among sysop-goons, no one dares revert or improve on another's work. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
"Well, hes annoying, he's insulting all of us, and he wants us to give up being dicks. However, he is a damn good headline writer so we should let him back in"--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Rob, I haven't really looked at your headlines, but I'll give you that it would be hard to do worse than Andy and the others. Still, the site is floating dead in the water in terms of positive influence. --Sid (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Any talk about reforming the insane blocking policy over at CP is just that - talk. Before they can do anything they need to cure:

  1. Kara's anger management issues
  2. The collective group paranoia
  3. The collective group persecution complex
  4. Ken's fundamental dishonesty
  5. The collective cowardice and avoidance of discussing facts.

A good example is the thorough policy I proposed for the then Abuse Desk, before it was sidetracked by Ed's rampant paranoia. CP's response? Deleting the Abuse Desk, courtesy of that malignant little maggot and TK wannabe, Geoff Plourde. There will be no reform, because for Kara and Ken, CP is all about having power and nothing else. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always believed that Kotomi/JessicaT was truly one of the best Sysops CP ever had. It was painful to see them go on a deletion spree of all Kotomi-related material. Refugeetalk page 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This week's Horizon...[edit] quite worth watching, especially whilst reading Andy on relativity and black holes. Go forth, suffer the cognitive dissonance, it is well worth it, especially if you point at the TV, imagine Andy or Hurlbut watching that particular section, and then imagine them throwing themselves on the floor and chewing the carpet.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For those of us across the pond, who have to download Horizions... what is the title of it?Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Horizon:Seeing Stars. Make a drinking game out of it. Have a shot everytime you imagine Andy's blood pressure rising if he were in the room with you and I guarantee you will live up to the programme's title. It's got it all, government spending, astronomy, astrophysics, a universe that's like, really old, black holes and no mention of God.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 21:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Horizon is really bad about that. They just have no respect for real science. I mean they sit there and say we can do thinks like "measure the speed of light', when we all know, thanks to the God of Science himself, Jason Lisles that "light cannot be measured, so therefor Goddidit". and of course Horizon never shows those pictures of god that they have, in the Nebula. And for heaven's sake, when will they admit that dating things with radiation is flawed. stupid horizon.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Jason Lisle said you can not measure the one way speed of light, and in that he is correct. All experiments so far have been with bouncing a light source, and no one has yet worked out a way to measure the speed of light in a one way experiment yet, but yeah, after that he does go therefore God did it.
Presumably the problem with measuring "one way speed" is the clock needed to measure time and thus derive speed. By using a mirror you have one clock, and the time between a photon leaving and returning is local time. If you want to measure light over a distance, you need two clocks, one at each end? And any attempt to get them to agree will involve assumptions about the constant c, which was supposedly what you were going to measure. Depending on how you adjust you may end up falsely concluding that light travels instantaneously (which the mirror experiments refute). (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, RW already has an article about all this. OK. (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

CP's "remarkably accurate" Iowa Straw Poll Predictions[edit]

Andy's Iowa Straw Poll predictions were pretty off, but he called them "remarkably accurateimg". The only one he got right was Rick Santorum at #4. Mitt Romney, considered by most the front-runner, came in at #7 (Andy had him at #3). Sarah Palin won nothing, and he put Herman Cain at #8, when he finished at #5. He had front runner Pawlenty at #6, but he came in at #3. Granted, these predictions for a blog like CP are relatively "remarkably accurate" but they would get you laughed off any reputable outlet as a total failure. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did he actually make those extended predictions anyway? They don't match up at all with his latest pre-Ames rankingimg, there was nothing on MPL before he posted the comparison, and the only MPR itemimg concerns just the two top spots - which he got wrong, unsurprisingly. Also, it's funny that he expresses amazement at the poor showing of a candidate who said weeks ago that he wouldn't compete at Ames. Of course, as we know from his fantasy candidates, that's nothing that Andy would take into consideration when making up his rankings. Röstigraben (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I actually had the same question, but since his predictions were so wildly off-the-mark I assumed they were made somewhere. I wouldn't want to post those predictions unless I had publicly made them. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I think he's claiming that their ranking was close to the final outcome. But of course, pretty much every pundit could have made that ranking... it wasn't hard to tell that Bachmann or Paul would win, for example, it was just a question of picking the right one (he failed). Nor was it hard to see where Cain and Santorum stood on the totem pole.
Of course, since apparently now "predictions" can come after the fact, I guess it doesn't really matter...--ADtalkModerator 22:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
In the proud tradition of Gerald Celente, either change your predictions to match what actually happened, or simply make them after all is said and done. άλφαTalk 22:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's the predictions - it was just some random, likely parodist who wrote it as a "here's what I think!" on Talk:MP. That, I guess, counts for Conservapedia predictions. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob block = Infinity[edit]

Still don't know how to view a single block log so, sorry. But it was by JCW for "(application of the 90/10 rule; utterly vindictive behaviour, attempting to bring CP into disrepute.)"--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

go to logs, see here: here RatMaster háblame 22:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I called it - I was the only who picked Jcw as the blocking sysop. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 22:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Well i know that. But how do i get it in a Capture/just a specefic block/blah. Im sure its easy, but having never done it, i wouldn't know--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Down goes TRobSky. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Back to one month. I guess the last few days punishment rob served must be reserved--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
For future reference: In my experience, the easiest way is to simply add a unique string (for example the current date) to the link, starting with a "#". For example this is the link Ratmaster posted, plus my "#aug15" string,img so Capturebot will recognize it as a new URL and will capture it. --Sid (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
TK was a giant ass to everyone, but was only banned because he swore at Andy. His mistake wasn't being abusive, but being abusive to the wrong person. (TK was eventually let back in.) Andy acts only now in the whole Rob v. Ken&Karajou fight because Rob made the mistake of insulting him. This says a lot about Andy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I never insulted Andy until he made the claim my asking for justice was "unproductive" or "unintellectual". He gets what he deserves. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait, what exactly has he "gotten?" he's still sitting on top of CP, and you're his used, slighted bitch, with dirty knees and his seed running down your chin, who will never be back in his good graces. If anyone "got what he deserves," my friend, it was you. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 23:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but Rob now has us and can move on alone. Andy has Ken and Karajou, who refuse to move on to leave him alone. ;) --Sid (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The whore analogy is hardly apt, since Rob stood up to basically the entire power structure on CP and said, "This site is a laughingstock, and we can make it better." What Andy got was that he showed his hand on how he's thin-skin, lacks leadership skills (any wonder he failed so miserably in his Congressional run?) and now Andy gets to stay king of his pile of crap. Rob woke up, and can see what a small man Andy is, and what a small, crackpot little world he rules. That's what Andy gets, and that's pretty sad. Rob gets to move on and use his time to achieve his ends more productively elsewhere. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---Rob spent a lot of time making CP into the shithole that it is. I recall trying to reason with Rob (and providing, as I always do evidence to back up my claims) regarding his stupid "New Ordeal" article and his edits about the south. Rob, you are intellectually dishonest (redundant for a one time CP sysop) and you got what you deserved.--Franklin (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What we've done in the past doesn't matter as much as what we do in the present. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
What Rob is doing in the present is still hoping to get back onto CP to write headlines for Andy during the election campaign (see above). He knows the place is a cesspool, he's done nothing to acknowledge his own role into making it so, and he spent years helping to make it a horrible place and a couple of weeks in a completely deluded state trying to make it into something it could never be. He still seems to think that CP is some sort of online encyclopedia with a community of editors, and not one guy's pet project that he lets a few buddies play with as long as they do exactly what he wants. I don't see much to paint Rob as a good guy here. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 14:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

JPatt takes a page from TK.[edit]

Hey,JPatt, this is really creepy and stalkerish.img B♭maj7 B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 23:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, lets face it. JCW is Bugler 2.0. Stupid as he is, at least JPratt reads RW so he can be informed about all the parodists that Andy promotes. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
What British spelling am I overlooking? Phiwum (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It's funny/sad that even after all this time they have trouble spotting obvious parodists. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) "Behaviour"img, apparently. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 00:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Although I don't have access to the checkuser logs that JPatt does, my browser (Firefox, preinstalled under Ubuntu) only has the British spelling dictionary by default. Ever since I upgraded to that version, it's been marking all my 'behaviors' as 'behaviours.' Thankfully I'm not on CP where the implied accusation of being a Brit (especially because my IP is American) would earn me a block rapidly. άλφαTalk 00:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Back when I was researching cp:liberal style, the use of British spelling was basically the only thing I found that had a positive correlation with liberalism. Definitely works a lot better than anything else on Andy's list. --MarkGall (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The paranoia on that site is rampant; surely no-one is above suspicion. In my more (less?) lucid moments I actually suspect that ASchlafly himself might be a deep cover liberal. Tielec01 (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ken, I understand what Terry said now![edit]

just so people who didn't figure out what Terry meant, Ken states it for them!img--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That bastard and his, uh, linking/typo correction? ~ Kupochama[1][2] 05:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This would be noteworthy if he was fixing someone else's error (something he never ever does), but the mistake wasn't made by Terry, it was made by himself. ONE / TALK 09:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this what you meant?img Or was there something I didn't get? --ʤɱ sinner 10:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yah. I just tend to grab the most recent change to something sense it ussualy shows what i meant. Probably wasn't clear on that here though. --Mikalos209 (talk)

"Broken politics"[edit]

Ken saysimg that if Obama can't fix the broken politics in Washington, then we should elect someone who can. This strategy of "We will only deal with Republicans, and will create a poisonous atmosphere if we don't get what we want" isn't working out well for them. When people pay attention and see it, they don't like it. Picture Obama's commercials with the tea baggers cheering the U.S. credit downgrade - not many Americans will think that's a patriotic, honorable thing to do. Like so many before them, their hubris and overreach will be their undoing. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In which Ken sums up the need for Rob's reforms[edit]

User makes corrections to silly page.img Ken blocks for five years without a single word or reason given.img EddyP Great King! Disaster! 14:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come off it, Eddy. How in the hell is completely changing the tone of one of Andy's pet articles to point out that creationists don't understand evolution and have a scientifically warped worldview ever not going to be a capital offense on CP, reforms or not? B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 14:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
That change was followed by thisimg in which someone wrote a full edit summary explaining what was wrong with the statement in the article. Which cheeky vandalism immediately earned a reversionimg by JamesWilson and a blockimg by our favourtie parodist. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Remarkable Typical. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 14:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Tis all part of the worlds slowest Vandal Attack--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It's sad seeing someone's free speech rights being taken away after he has spend so much effort on something. I on the other hand got banned much more efficiently by simply adding the word "Christian" in front of the "a mob" in the Hypatia article. Sen (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
"Christian a mob"? I'm not surprised you got banned ;) ONE / TALK 15:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while.[edit]

Account creation is turned off. The reforms are coming along nicely. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering every new account for the last day has been a vandal... this actually seems like a reasonable move.--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind, these people thrive on feeling persecuted. This will only serve to further entrench themselves in CP dogma. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've got account creation turned on when I visit? They've been going into night edit mode for a while again now, switching of editing and account creation but they always swicth it back on again in the 'morning'. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup, someone just turned it on. Nothing to see here. --B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 18:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The war is over, Ed returns[edit]

Always the diplomat, Ed patiently waited on Wikipedia for the Rob/Ken/Kara conflict to come to an end (I guess so he can later claim he had nothing to do with it) and pretends that it simply didn't happen: A reply to Sid (blocked until tomorrow) and Rob (blocked for a whole month)img

I won't even go into what he said - if you know Ed, you can imagine. Fortunately, I still got until tomorrow to decide whether I should even bother to reply to this. Blah. --Sid (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bah ha ha! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hrm. So no one should be able to tell which side of the "controversy" a CP editor is writing from, Ed? Have you ever seen CP? Maybe you could start this brave new world by F I R I N G Kendoll. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Ed edits on some strange fictional website. He loves to come up with editorial policy... and then simply assumes that this magically applies to the entire site and renders it immune against criticism.
In other news, Ed finally sawimg my MRellek reply (still blocked for that one, by the way) and... is apparently so pissed off by SamHB's reply there that he extendsimg his block to roughly eight days in total. Niiiiiiiiiiice, Ed! :) --Sid (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
And another gem which I personally enjoy: I won't stand for any ideoligical censorship. If there is any point, important or trivial, serious or silly, which another contributor censors from an article - merely because it's a liberal (or "rational") idea, let me know. I will show you how to describe it in a fair, objective and trustworthy manner - or if you can't learn how, I may choose to do it myself.
This is absolutely ridiculous in light of this whole section User_talk:Ed_Poor#Censorship at Conservapedia, where he failed to react on ideological censorship for a couple of weeks now...
larronsicut fur in nocte 19:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, my reply to Ed so pissed off Karajou that he deleted it at the time he blocked me. Fortunately, BradB came along and replaced it, so Ed was able to see it (obviously.) And I like Ed's block commentimg. He says I have potential if I stick to what I know. SamHB (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Such people are free to contribute to our debate topics (where they'll get as much attention as they merit --Ed.
Right, Ed, like right here. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 19:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The key phrase is "as they merit" Rob. Dissenters of the Party line merit none--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's the same mechanism as the one behind 90/10: You have nothing to fear as long as you make substantive contributions and no combatitive comments... and every sysop can individually decide which is which. Heck, all CP rules basically grind down to "You are safe as long as a powerful sysop approves of your actions. If not, then we'll insult and taunt you before finally banning you." --Sid (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Now that that pesky liberal Rob is out of the picture, CP can finally close the gatesimg again. Phew! --Sid (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Good old Karajou. I'm astonished he hasn't permablocked all the RW users Rob unblocked, though. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Too much work - he'll just hammer them one at a time if they dare to show up. --Sid (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Whatever happened to 403'ing the entire world? That seemed to cut down on vandalism... άλφαTalk 21:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Andy must have seen the drop in traffic it also caused. Web traffic = teh POWAH Occasionaluse (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Ken serious or...?[edit]

Internet Explorer: The bastion of Internet Securityimg!--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I have yet another reason to not use IE: Ken likes it. ~SuperHamster Talk 19:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Your browser blocks malware? Cool! Now only if the operating system it's on top of was secure... Occasionaluse (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone should introduce Ken to NoScript; I can just imagine his newfound frustration with the internet when suddenly everything "doesn't work." άλφαTalk 20:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've heard that Internet Explorer has been plagued by BHOs. Microsoft is trying to kick their butts (whether it's successful or not is another matter altogether). Conservapedia, renowned for their in-depth, well-understood IT articles, approves of any BHO-related buttkicking. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Barack Hussein Obamas? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheist Hospitals[edit]

I found this interesting, perhaps Ed Poor will read it too, even if it does contradict his beliefs. Atheist HospitalsJimaginator (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that before, and it's a good read. Let's also not forget about all the hospitals that the Atheist Chinese have built - and don't get me started with Atheist England! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Athiest hospitals allow abortion. so they are evil and vile and are not "real hospitals" therfore. there are no atheist hospitals. just like no (true) christians have ever killed anyone, anywhere.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 20:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I read it and laughed. Here is the cliff notes version. "Atheists built hospitals and religious people are less than good." The majority of the article attacks the Christian faith, glosses over the lack of hard data on atheist-built hospitals. Just read the first sentence of each paragraph, it's not much better than what I can write and i don't get paid.-- (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Every hospital that is not a "christian" or "jewish" or muslim or whatever hospital, is an atheist hospital. Cause they are secular hospitals, and atheists are secular people. Let's see, in boulder Colorado we have 5 hospitals. 3 are private, run for profit, 1 is a community hospital paid for by our taxes, and one is in between, subsidized by taxes but for profit. not one is a religious hospital. in boulder we win 5 to 0. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 20:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I went to the U of Colorado! Boulder - sigh - so beautiful. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(directed at the anon, who is that, Jpatt?) It sounds like you only "read the first sentence of each paragraph." Go back, try again, and this time, don't just skim it; you have to actually comprehend it for anyone to really want to listen to you. άλφαTalk 21:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, it's JPatt. And you just asked him to read the whole page? hahahahaha!!!! You're much better off with a Karajou demand:, you WILL read the article and now you actually have to provide us with cliff notes to prove you understood it. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, well that explains it. I always sort of felt bad for him, because when we would email back and forth, it was evident that he was really struggling with grammar and comprehension. He was well aware of it, too, but he felt kind of helpless to do anything about it. άλφαTalk 21:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) You need to remember that these people are so stupid, they think you're that stupid. The real goalpost is that you can't name a hospital with some form of the work "atheism" in its name, just so long as you get distracted from the fact that the claim is completely meaningless and one that only an idiot could make. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I think I'll correct the 'cliff notes version' that the (other) BoN editor provided. It should actually be something like, "Religious people claim that atheists have never built any hospitals, but, actually, the overwhelming majority of the funding for all hospitals comes from entirely secular sources - even if that particular hospital has a religious name/symbol/whatever slapped onto it." Perhaps your complete lack of understanding of what the article actually says, plus your total ignorance of the evidence presented in the references given in the article's footnotes, causing you to make the comment about 'glossing over' this evidence, is caused by you only reading the first sentence in each paragraph. When people write paragraphs that are more than one sentence long, there's usually a reason for that. But, of course, you won't see me pointing this out, because all you'll have read of this reply, if anything, is 'Hmm'. (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion sprung up on Andy's talk page a few weeks ago, and was categorically ignored by everyone but Ken. Then Ed Poor jumped in for some reason. See hereimg--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Situational awareness fail two, Hitler Boogaloo[edit]

Did Hitler rewrite the Bible?img No idea, but I know a man who did. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

People have been trying to write the Jews out of the Bible since atleast Marcion, anything Hitler ordered or sanctioned isn't even close to new--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if Kendoll even read the article, because the answer it gives is pretty much "No." Still, anything to get another Hitler pic on the front page, eh Ken? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently the text has been "reorganized to present Jesus as a warrior, not a servant or meek or the Lamb of God." -- didn't Andy try to minimize the whole "Jesus-as-forgiveness" part of Christianity in his Bible? Or am I misremembering? B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 03:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
BWHAHAHA....further down the mainpage: Contribute to the Conservative Bible Project. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitler rewrote the bible. Assfly rewrote the bible. Therefore Hitler=Andy. That means Hitler was a very strict Christian, like Andy. Hey, Schlafly math is fun.--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why say something like that ? It of course means that Andy is a socialist, communist, anti-semite, fascist, gay and anti-christian. --ʤɱ soviet 14:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This was posted by Ken who has persistently claimed that Hitler was an atheist. Surely he would have banned the Bybull rather than just excising the Jews. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 23:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So, something I've thought of a few times[edit]

How do you think CP would react if Obama was assassinated? --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

They wouldn't quite dance on his grave, but it would be close. DickTurpis (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it would depend on the assassin. If it was a fellow liberal and/or atheist you'd have one response. If it were a hard-line right wing Christian...who knows.. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 04:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
If it was a hard-line right-wing Christian they would spend their time trying to find one thing he deviated from the party line on and label him as not a Christian Conservative. - π Moderator 04:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Mikalos. The Secret Service should be knocking on all of our doors anytime now. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 04:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It's also likely they'd help Jpatt hide the gun. DickTurpis (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
CP wants that. There's always a crowd that's happy when a president gets shot. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
With due respect, I find comments like the above utterly tasteless. Let's talk about what CP editors do and say, rather than pretending that we know they are such inhuman monsters that they would celebrate the assassination of the leader of their nations. (In fact, I find the whole thread tasteless, but especially the above comment.) Nothing personal, Senator. Phiwum (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Do we read the same website?--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think they would be happy, I think they would solemnly feel like he was asking for it because he didn't pursue more American policies to avert it. It would be a tragedy, but a tragedy that he brought upon himself. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
We've seen in the past (Senate Democrats hit list) that CP is perfectly willing to tolerate the insinuation of violence against Democratic politicians. I would imagine the response would be something like "It's a shame that he was killed, but at least he's not President anymore." Stile4aly (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Possibly, but let's remember a few things. The "hit list" was not put out by CP nor (far as I recall) featured on CP and the average reader surely understood that the "targets" were political in nature. And, while we can speculate on CP's reaction in this hypothetical presidential assassination, it serves no purpose aside from showing our own preconceptions about them. "They would totally do that, and so they're bad!!" is not an effective argument form. Let's drop this question and talk about what they've actually done or said rather than our predictions regarding what they might do or say in some counterfactual situation. (Or am I just a silly bear?) Phiwum (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservative songs make me go WTF?![edit]

Just took a look at the list of "conservative songs" and it made me want to ragequit. Of course it is stuffed redneck battle hymns and I'm not surprised about that, but there's a number of songs on there where it is perfectly clear that they've been included for completely frivolous reasons, or because the person that added it is either a parodist or either entirely misread or misunderstood the lyrics entirely. The two biggest offenders are without a doubt the inclusions of "Sympathy for the Devil" and "Union Sundown". Two songs, that even by CP-standards of "everything good is conservative, everything bad is liberal" can not even in the best minds be construed as having any sort of conservative message (though of course them claiming songs for no particular reason is of course also a large part of the game here). Chaosof99 (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure half the songs were inserted by parodists. You can take just about any song and twist the meaning to make it look like it's a conservative song (and people at CP will believe it). Hell, I was able to take a couple songs that have nothing to do with conservatism and put them in there without any second thoughts from CP. SoCal But said it would be legal... 05:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Never mind the parodists - when you've got Andy defending YMCA you know all bets are off. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 06:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Andy's insistence that YMCA was a conservative song was the first time I ever seriously wondered if Andy himself was a parodist. MDB (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait, Andy actually defended YMCA as a conservative song? I thought Psygremlin was pulling my chain with that. Can I get a link to that? Chaosof99 (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
As you wish.img MDB (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the guy who wrote the song is straight and insists it is just a tribute to the YMCA and not intended as a gay anthem. However, he also admits he likes double entendre.
On the other hand, there's this from Can't Stop the Music, the infamous Village People movie. There's absolutely nothing homoerotic about it, no no no no no, not at all... MDB (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Nah, for me the biggest offender without doubt - which made me spit my tea when I first read it and still does each time I see it has not been removed - is Wish You Were Here by The Floyd. Which acording to cp is about wishing for the return of a conservative president. The fact it was written by a bunch of acid using British hippies who opposed the vietnam war and is SOLELY about the rather sad story of the wonderful Syd and the damage that acid did to him is neither here nor there in cp world.
I always find the story about the recording of the song itself rather sad. The Floyd were in the studio recording Wish and this man shambled in and sat quietly in a corner listening. It took several hours before the band realised that it was in fact Syd himself, he was in that much of a mess at the time.
And wasn't Bodies by the Pistols on that list at one time?Oldusgitus (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
"Bodies" is still on there, but that is somewhat understandable since "Bodies" is about abortion and has been interpreted as being anti-abortion by many people. The problem of course is that the Pistols are certainly not in any way, shape or form a "conservative" band. And of course it goes over the head of CP and many conservatives that being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion, only that one has realized that there are situations in which abortion is the best option available and that this is a decision to be made by the pregnant woman. But I guess the conservatives would rather have the mentally-insane drug-addict, impregnated by rape, that has the abortion in "Bodies" carry to term, so the baby can die in a dumpster abandoned by a mother that is clearly incapable of caring for the child. Chaosof99 (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Bodies is only about abortion in the most ssuperficial of senses. Bodies is based on a real person and is actually about a very deeply disturbed young woman who was called Pauline and who used to turn up at pistols gigs and their homes and shag anyone there. She was seriously mentally ill at the time and as far as I know never made it out of the eighties. She was certainly institutionalised at one time in the late 70's I believe. I never met her but I knew peple in the early eighties who had. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It lists Okie From Muskogee, which was intended at least something of a spoof. MDB (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look into a lot of them, there's a huge number of songs that don't belong on the list by any stretch, and some other ones that are vandalized in other ways. Of course, I urge you not to be specific in which ones are. - Lardashe
Oh yeah, most entries are parodies on that list. But andy is on record as supporting YMCA as being conservative and I recall him at some stage defending Bodies as conservative because it was 'anti-abortion' which, as I say, completely and utterly misses the point of what the actual song is about. The song is more about mental illness than it is about abortion. But of course andy wouldn't know or understand that. The fact Steve Jones (for I think it was he I heard and read discussing it) has explained what the song is about means nothing in andyland. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Not unlike Andy's past insistence that George Orwell was really a conservative, not a socialist. When prevented with overwhelming evidence that Orwell was a socialist who loathed what socialism turned into in Soviet Russia, Andy argued that Orwell pretended to be a socialist to go along with the crowd or something, but was really a conservative. MDB (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, they are right that You Light Up My Life is about Jesus. Of course, that song reminds me of when a young Homer and Marge listened to it on The Simpsons.
Homer: I bet the guy she was singing that about was real happy.
Marge: Well, actually, she was singing about God.
Homer: Oh, well, He's always happy. No, wait, He's always mad...
MDB (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Many of the composers of the music on the list are/were atheists, and the same goes for the lyricists. This includes some of the blatantly religious songs too. I guess a gig's a gig. Extra for Experts: Can you figure out which ones? Jimaginator (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While many of them simply don't qualify as distinctly conservative (Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, You Can't Hurry Love) there are a handful that are specifically anti-conservative, and I think nobody actually looked beyond the description that someone added. At least two of them are really, really obvious, based on the title or artist. There are other ones that I think are just based on a broad misunderstanding of the point (Fast Car reflects poorly on conservative policies). Then there are titles listed because someone liked the song (Free Bird has nothing even vaguely conservative about it, except the artist). -Lardashe
Skynyrd was pretty conservative in a lot of ways (okay, is, if you insist that they still exist), but let's not forget the atypical song, "Saturday Night Special", which seemed to be anti-handgun — or at least anti-cheap-handgun. Phiwum (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Buffett MPR Item[edit]

Okay, Ken posted this itemimg about Warren Buffett to Main Page Right.

I can see at least twothree things wrong with that.

  1. It assumes that Buffett is somehow involved with the day-to-day operations of every company in Berkshire-Hathaway. For a company as diversified as Berkshire-Hathaway, that's preposterous.
  2. It assumes that Buffett's support of a tax increase for the very wealthy means he supports everything about Obama.
  3. It implies that liberal New York has somehow turned on Obama. Now, I could be mistaken, but as I understand the politics of New York state, New York City itself is liberal, but upstate New York tends to the conservative.

It's just a whole world o' failin'.

MDB (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

4. "disinterested in learning" - "disinterested" means "impartial", so this would be a Good Thing
5. "Et tu, liberal New Yorkers?" - grammar fail, "tu" is singular.
Cantabrigian (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not only that. Most media conglomerates/cooperations/big ass companies tend to not get involved in day to day politics and have magazines and newspapers that support all mainstream positions. Ken thinking that all bosses usually tell their reporters and journalists what to write shows how much he doesn't understand the concepts of neutral journalism and freedom of speech. I've been thinking for a while now, that people that actually think about what they write on MPR will be much more turned away from CP then by reading his Atheism and Obesity vomits. --ʤɱ kant 11:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
"upstate New York tends to the conservative" - You mean like where Ken lives? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 14:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
MDB's analysis is correct about upstate and Buffet, who is a famously hands-off owner once he has the right management team in place. And Ken, just because Roger Ailes infuses Fox News with biased right wing reporting doesn't mean that Warren Buffet is going to demand that his newspaper only print his views. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Conservapedia[edit]

On everything but the size of government, Tea Party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans. Indeed, at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, today’s Tea Party parallels the anti-Vietnam War movement which rallied behind George S. McGovern in 1972. The McGovernite activists brought energy, but also stridency, to the Democratic Party — repelling moderate voters and damaging the Democratic brand for a generation. By embracing the Tea Party, Republicans risk repeating history.

The more Americans learn about my little wingnut ant farm's views, they reject them. According to a New York Times survey that has interviewed essentially the same 3000 people since 2006, the Tea Party is now less popular than Muslims and atheists. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there's also a parallel to the late Eighties/early Nineties when the Democrats were viewed as the party of Jesse Jackson (who was influential, but not that influential.) However, the problem with either parallel is the leadership of the Tea Party is more difficult to make "scary" to the rest of the country. The "McGovernite activists" could be portrayed as a bunch of pot smoking draft dodging hippies, and Jesse Jackson could be portrayed as an angry black man -- the Republicans could emphasize their "otherness". By contract, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin have an easier time coming off as "just like you." Even if the Democrats emphasize Bachmann's Dominionist Christian beliefs, it will come off as if she's being attacked for being a Christian, and that won't play in middle America. MDB (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Those are interesting points, but I don't think they bear out. We only need look at Conservapedia to see how people react to these ideas. They are a laughingstock and even many conservatives think they are parodists who want to tar conservatives with outlandish, extreme ideology. There are multiple examples of objectionable, hate-filled and unpatriotic material on CP that most Americans would turn away from their rhetoric and the beliefs that they hold. We have Tea Partiers who brought guns to Obama's town halls. We have people who are coming out of the Tea Party after years saying what they actually want, which is a fundamentalist Christian nation. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, the TEA is now a great threat to all the left but liberal extremists calling others extremists just won't cut the mustard. The movement has been frowned upon since its inception. Yet the movement is still front and center in American politics. So keep on getting pats on the back from the lib media "constitution lovers are extreme" but that doesn't change the outcome. Spoiler alert: The Obama era signals the end of liberalism as a political force in America. -- (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we should fear a party that's led by a crazy woman who can't even get the basics right. Still, John, you should be careful about coming over here - Rob used to come over and taunt us, and look how we turned him into a simpering liberal scumbag. You wouldn't want Ken on your case now, would you? --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome to believe whatever you want, Jpatt, but that isn't going to make it reality. This is the big problem with you guys, and it's going to cause tremendous frustration when you have to confront that most Americans don't like what you believe. By the way - I love Michele Bachmann! Keep up the good work. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh johnny, you're spending too long talking to your own kind and listening to faux news. A friend of mine from Ohio has just been retrenched. Gulf war 1 vet, staunch republican for his entire life. Voted bush and opposed Obama and clinton. Now he finds that thanks to the wingnuts his health insurance is going to cost him 1800 dollars per month and he simply doen't have that money any more. His comment to me? 'We dont have socialised medicine like you lucky bastards in the UK'. He thinks the tea baggers are idiots and he's not voting gop next time round I assure you. And I doubt he will again. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's Promotion week![edit]

Pretty much any user not to new has been given blocking and Skipcaptcha rights!. Screw capturebot.--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! CPalmer finally gets rights, after about 4 years! FOIA too! And JimJast! (ok, that was thanks to a good word from my sock an editor. --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I like how my nameimg pops up in the apparently corresponding discussion, and Andy completely ignores it. =P --Sid (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Poor Sid, used abused and ignored :( I'm here for you. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You were even passed over by LowKey, who has made only 6 edits this whole fucking year! LOL AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually this is kinda funny. While Karajou burns down the house of that evil dissenterimg And rapes his corpse once againimg, everybody gets some candy!img Maybe Andy collaborated with Karajerk and Ken so he can keep his shorts vest, clean from the trouble? Do we now have a triad? --ʤɱ atheist 19:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that Justine had been stripped of all privileges for inactivity from July 2009, yet Sharon hasn't contributed since October 2009, Bethany since June 2009, PhilipB since February 2009, ChrisS and DeborahB. since November 2008, Ymmotrojam and Ken's meatpuppet Freedom777 since July 2008, DavidR since April 2008 and Will.N. since November 2007 while CollegeRepublican - thanks to poor wiki management - not only has no recent activity but has absolutely no edit history. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 23:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad CPalmer finally got any basic rights. He's been on about that for years. Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 00:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Whatever happened to chippetersen and hsmom? Refugeetalk page 01:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Chip either found out himself or was convinced to ditch CP and abandon its crazy shit. HSmom was chased off by TK, tried to come back but didn't feel very welcome.
CollegeRepublican only ever made two edits - MPR headlines if I recall (and since then, it's been deleted). AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 03:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Blocking Panel begins[edit]

So far, everyone who has had their say has completely avoided the issue of abuse, accountability, and absence of leadership. In fact, they're mostly trying to focus on how long to block users only... like that'll improve anything. Sysop authority is still absolute, users are the ones who pay the price, and it's still up in the air as to who would be on this "blocking review panel" and the lack of communication between blocked editors, since email is disabled.

Anyone think this will go anywhere? AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, which is the likely point of this. It would be amusing if Ken uses his usual stubbornness to force through a Review Panel, though. --Sid (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Kenny will probably make a blocking panel, but it will probably be himself and only people who agree with everything he says - and even then it will probably take weeks for the panel to make a decision, and eventually the panel will just be abandoned completely. This is Conservapedia we're talking about - nothing ever gets done there.Beck (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there goes Rob's remaining chances[edit]

KAra has changed his block to the 5 year standard, and deleted his Talk and user page! (Again, screw finding capturebot for this)--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this already blocked user evidently intimidated or harassed someone. What the heck happened, if anything? Phiwum (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
He apparently got tired of supporting the system he helped create, so he fought back, predictably lost.--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what has he done since the previous one month block that justifies a new five year block? Also, "Intimidating behavior/harassment" does not appear on Karajou's own list of blockable offenses. Is it supposed to fall under "starting a fight"? Phiwum (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
He was RobSmith, who fell from the heavens for wanting to change how things worked. He insulted every sysop including Andy. Considering what hes written here and how Kara reads whats written here, he would have broken the civility guidlines many times over already. That and apparently Kara finds many sockpuppets of rob, which would also warrant a ban extension on his main account--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
"Rob Smith who?" This is why I love CP. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The creation of "unpersons" is probably CP's most disturbing element. I suppose it beats the creation of Emmanual Goldstein's but not by much. DamoHi 20:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
They already have goldstein, its called Rationalwiki.--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The issues:

  • (A) Evidence of suckpuppetry or checkuser that User:RobSmith violated his 30 day block issued 14 August 2011 to support Intimidating behaviour/harassment behavior on CP?
  • (B) If the alleged Intimidating behaviour/harassment causing an extended block happened elsewhere, the extension of the block violates site policy per Andy Schlafly which states, 15.We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere.

Pretty clear case. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Give it up Rob. People on this site have been saying exactly what you are saying for 4 years. Now that the shoe is on the other foot you are complaining. Give it up. DamoHi 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand your sense of injustice Rob. I mean, CP has generally been consistent, fair, and even-handed in how it treats its editors, and there's a long tradition of openness and transparency there. The way they've treated you is really an aberration, and I've never, ever, in almost 5 years of watching CP, seen them just block someone for reasons that were out of line with the published standards. Shut the fuck up, Smith. You're an idiot and a troll. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 20:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
An example of theocracy in action. Andy = Rafsanjani, a religious nutter trying to reshape reality according to his theology. The 'Commandments' and 'guidelines' = sharia law based on an 'as it suits' interpretation of an old book and anything else where 'the end justifies the means' (anyone expecting equal and impartial application of the 'law' to all, see blocks below). The Revolutionary Guards = the sysops, Karajerk = Mohammad Ali Jafari, the Guardian Council = the Student Panel and other similar incarnations. Indefinite blocks are the equivalent of incarcerations to encourage dissidents to toe the party line, permanent blocks are the equivalent of executions to silence opposition and encourage doubters and dissenter to shut up. That's what America would be like if Andy and his socially inadequate sycophants had their way. Auld Nick (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a random thought for Aug 18, 2011[edit]

Page edits since Conservapedia was set up: 875,592
Page edits since RationalWiki was set up: 855,952

We should overtake them in two or three months...

--larronsicut fur in nocte 08:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoist by their own petard again - if Ken didn't vaporise so many pages, they'd probably still be a long way ahead of us. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope: these counts include deleted (and even oversighted) edits: it's just the number of the newest revision... larronsicut fur in nocte 10:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The number of reverts on CP is huge. In practical terms RationalWiki would already be way ahead surely. --Horace (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
A quarter of CP's number is Ken moving full stops, tweaking image sizes by single pixel increments, or using the Red Telephone. Olé! --Sid (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Shame they don't have user edit counts open to the public, otherwise we'd know what Ken's was. SJ Debaser 11:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I'm loving a challenge...
edit-counts for 2010
sysop all edits still there
on Aug 1, 2011
Conservative 23004 9466 41%
TK 11441 5717 50%
Aschlafly 9477 7127 75%*
Jpatt 4927 3560 72%
Karajou 4523 3107 69%
Ed Poor 3287 2708 82%
RobSmith 3173 2885 91%**
(*): Ken deleted Andy's talk-page in January...
(**): the number is much lower today, as Karajou deleted Rob's talk-page on Aug 17, 2011
--larronsicut fur in nocte 12:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Are there any Kendolletions that might account for the low percentages for JPatt and Karajou? I seem to remember that MPR was vaped at one point by Ken or TK... and JPatt is prolific on MPR. ONE / TALK 13:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
cp:User:JacobB deleted it in mid-2010, no one bothered to restoreimg the revisions... larronsicut fur in nocte 13:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am convinced that LArron is a robot, tasked by the mechanical overmind to document CP's idiocy out of a sort of reflexive revulsion at Andy's abuses of basic logic.--ADtalkModerator 13:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The WIGO:CP crowd is lucky to have someone so dedicated and talented. His graphs contribute wodnerfully to the CP-watching effort :) ONE / TALK 15:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Um, thanks I think :-) I know that only a handful of visitors actually looks at my doodles, so I enjoy any utterance of appreciation by this intrepid few ;-) --larronsicut fur in nocte 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think many people look at them, they are just so good that it's hard to comment. (Does that count as a given blowjob?) --ʤɱ federalist 22:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
EC) I think that a lot of folk think LArron is actually part of MediaWiki that operates randomly. I love it (the LArron function) and wish I'd the knowhow. Pippa (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

wer lesen kann ist klar im Vorteil[edit]

Is that matrix for 2010 or 2011? RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I'm loving a challenge...
edit-counts for 2010
—right up there you fucking moron!
--ʤɱ constructivist 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed: NPOV, just not[edit]

It's really sad that Ed's suggestionimg would be a giant leap forwards while still being utter crap. Think that says a lot about CP's current state.

Ed's idea in a nutshell, as far as I understand it, is to basically write articles like "Young Earth Creation Scientists have determined that the Earth is six thousand years old. Adherents of an old Earth claim that the Earth is several billion years old, but they are of course wrong."

Seriously, how can anybody write a proposal that calls for describing all viewpoints fairly (which, yes, would be a great improvement compared to the current situation) and then allows one viewpoint to be declared correct simply because the editor with the biggest hammer has decided so?

On what batshit insane site does "Let the other side make their case, and then we get the last word and declare them to be wrong." count as a progressive and almost revolutionary proposal? --Sid (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the main problem I came across on there. Any reference to an older universe, no matter how well cited was instantly attacked and re-written as something "atheistic scientists" promoted but of course, not true.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ed's argument, using global warming as the example, is that WP decided global warming was a fact and the critics section was relegated to quack ideas. So Ed advanced the notion of promoting controversies, i.e., the use of such terms as "is hotly contested", etc., that began appearing in WP to promote the notion of NPOV. Ed claims he was labeled a POV pusher for saying, "here's the global warming controversy, pro & con." Does thar sum it up? RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 16:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Global CLIMATE CHANGE, not warming, is not 'hotly contested'. It is accepted by over 98% of climate scientists and is doubted only by either those who have gained their climate 'science' education from faux news and daily mail type sources or by those professional deniers like monckton (who actually falls into both camps) who are funded and backed by the fossil fuel industry. The evidence that AGW is happening is overwhelming and no amount of andy type bollocks about 'its cold today, agw is false' will change that. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't sum it up because the core problem is the concept there is some sort of scientific controversy in areas where there isn't. There is no great controversy over the size and age of the universe, or the age of the earth, or the evolution of life, or of mankind when it comes to the basics in the scientific community no matter how much YECs want to dishonestly pretend otherwise. When someone says YEC is legitimate science they are lying to you. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Which is also what leads to Ed causing constant trouble on WP: He doesn't want to accept the whole WP:WEIGHT issue of NPOV and instead tries to promote his own version of NPOV: "There is the mainstream POV and whatever I believe in. These two things should have equal weight regardless of (scientific) support."
And what Ed is suggesting here is simply an extremely weak compromise: He knows that Conservapedia will forever brand his worldview (Old Earth, Unification Church) as universally wrong and meekly accepts this(!!!!!!!!!!!) because he values his banhammer more than his principles, but he at least wants his side to be described fairly and thus aims for his pseudo-NPOV where everybody should at least be heard. --Sid (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I want to put some scientific fact into some of the astronomy articles but I wonder how far that would actually fly even with the Ed NPOV-light ideal, or would I just be wasting time?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I was using Climate change as an example. In 2005, the Wikipedia commies were virtually alone anywhere still disputing the guilt of cp:Alger Hiss. This issue went from "a consensus among scholars" to a "hotly contested" dispute for NPOV. In fact, WP is virtually the only source anywhere on the planet that still claims Hiss was innocent. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 22:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


Ed wantsimg people to use their real name on Conservapedia!

...except for his old Wikipedia buddies.

...also except for people like Ken and Kara.

But he totally supports a real name rule! *nods* --Sid (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What's funny is that he thinks he has Wikipedia friends. He's a joke on Wikipedia for the same reasons that he's a joke on Conservapedia. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Considering his latest pet stub CP:See Russia, I'm glad he does the bulk of his editing away from WP. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
One rule and two exceptions - this is beginning to feel like a German grammar lecture. (To make a joke only a few people will get ;) ) --ʤɱ pirate 22:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick request for comments[edit]

Okay, so Ed switched into full "I had my eyes closed during the last 4+ years - is CP unfair and biased?"img mode on my talk page, and I'm really not sure what to do.

My block expires in a few hours, but with timezones, lack of "night" editing rights, and me actually having a life, I won't be able to actually sit down and reply for the next... *thinks* 19 hours at least.

So I'm asking for opinions on what to do. It's not really a vote in that I won't necessarily go with the majority, so no need to do strategic counting or anything. =P

My options as I see them:

  • Long reply: I love my walls of text, I really do. Of course, they take hours to write and research. =/
  • Very short reply: Not necessarily a "FUCK OFF", but Ed gave enough openings for a "Wow, are you serious? I won't even waste my breath here..." reply.
  • Castle: Just remove the entire thing and see what happens. *trollface* (With Rob depowered, I wouldn't last long around Kara/Jcw anyway, and I don't really care about being blocked.)
  • Ignore: Pretend nothing happened - Ed's attention span will likely have run out anyway
  • Other: Go wild!

Thanks in advance, feel free to suggest silly things if you feel like it, and let's see where things end up! =D --Sid (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Long reply[edit]

Take the hours and write the wall of text. What you have here is a request from a senior admin for a list of the things wrong with CP. Not an opportunity to be squandered. Take your time and produce the definitive work on the subject. Then post it to your castle. Be aware, however, that in doing so you are providing an incentive for Karajou to block you in order that your user pages might be deleted, thus erasing the hideous stain that your response to Ed will, no doubt, constitute. --Horace (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  • If you paste it to Ed's page it'll less likely be deleted/over-sighted before he can read. Wait for a day you can see Ed online. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 02:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • LONG long reply, lots of diffs to prove/back your points: revert yourself immediately, with appropriate apologies. Make popcorn. C®ackeЯ

Very short reply[edit]

Be sure to mention something about the tale of AlanE, a user who I'd always felt was blocked POV style. He was one who made great edits, with attention to detail, but were mostly about things non-American. Off the top of my head, this is just one of the non-TK blocks that were unfair. Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 00:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And the blocking of supposed socks. Just because an IP is similar doesn't make it the same person. Some discretion is necessary. When I was permablocked by TK, collateral damage included JLauttamus (who is from my area but is a separate person than I, we never even met) and Krysg (not sure the reason here). Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 01:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't go with a laundry list of complaints. Keep is short, timely, direct, and simple. Use a current illustration of a longstanding abuse. Like this for example:
  • Ed Poor issues temporary cooling off block of User:SamHB and notes "you have potential as a contributor" after SamHB posted this Rubuttal Rebuttal to Ed. Ed did not revert SamHB. Uninvolved Sysop User:Karajou interferes in an ongoing discussion by reverting SamHB, which includes two other sysops, Ed Poor and myself, (although I did not post directly on MRellik's talk page, I advocated for reconsideration here) and a potential contributor.
How is a "potential contributor" ever to be transformed into a contributing member if a sysop totally disregards two other Sysops efforts to work with the guy? If SamHB's commment was so offensive, why didn't Ed revert it himself at the time of the temporary block?
The same page offers another example of the same point. User:Jcw interfered with Sid's own response to EdPoor. Obviously Ed Poor & Sid are having a very important ongoing discussion, evidenced by Ed's thoughtful responses to Sid on several pages. Both User:Karajou & User:Jcw interfered with Ed's discussion. This is huge problem on Conservapedia, and years have been wasted just trying to get a discussion going on Blocking Policy precisely because of this type of Sysop conduct. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Obviously Ed Poor & Sid are having a very important ongoing discussion, evidenced by Ed's thoughtful responses to Sid on several pages. You are a funny guy! Phiwum (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)



  • Totally. With the edit comment "You don't get to troll my castle, Edmund." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Since you seem confident that you're going to be infinitely blocked soon, anything more than this is a waste of time. Whether you write a wall of text or a short reply, it won't change a thing. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Above--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


Trying to engage Ed has always been a waste of my time. He rarely responds, and never in a timely manner. He has the attention span of a gnat. He's already gone, watching the latest My Little Ponies flick.--Simple (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't argue, or present facts, to those morons. Whatever you write, Ed will ignore, probably with a snide remark. Don't give him the pleasure. If you must respond, write a parthian and walk away. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 06:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


Between long and short reply, sort of. Answer with links, TONS OF LINKS, HUNDREDS IF YOU MUST! And a summarizing of each link, just in case Ed cries "all you post are links, you expect me to do read it all?!". If you post no links or not enough, Ed cries, "But you don't have [enough] links! *blocks first, replies after* You're just trying to cause a disruption!" But, I think the first thing you do in your reply, should be pointing out RonLar's section on Ed's talkpage that he conveniently and obviously avoids. Also press Conservative's replies all over the main page, his pet articles, and community portal as nothing more than trolling, because it is.

If you throw it away and insult him, your talkpage will be burned, you'll be blocked, and you get 15 seconds of fame and maybe a captcha. Whoop-dee-doo. If you reply with any incivility, they'll block you, if it weren't obvious enough after Rob was struck down. It's OK for them to be uncivil to you, so force a smile and push your point. This is of course, my strategy, and only my suggestion. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 00:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This, definitely. Ed Poor is a central figure at CP, and he appears to be openly asking for an answer. He is very proud of his contributions at WP and CP, and has a personal code (whatever we might think of his application of it, it exists). So this is his seeking for information, and shouldn't be scorned. You have a real chance here - not much of one, but a chance - to help nudge him in the right direction: a recognition of the poison culture of CP. I think it exists because of Andy's failure of leadership, but concentrate on proving the problem exists to Ed. Be polite and scrupulous and don't exaggerate. You don't need to exaggerate. Just show the problem.--ADtalkModerator 01:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being blind, but where is that RonLar's section on Ed's talk page that you speak of, Norseman? GTac (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hereimg, the whole section. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 13:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ha! Completely blind it was. Dunno what happened there, maybe I was looking for Larron's RW sig or something.. Anyways, thanks for pointing out the bloody obvious. GTac (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A short reply with a long one in the back-hand I love your wall-of-texts, too. The only problem: in a long reply, Ed Poor will pick on the least interesting point, maybe find a technicality and go off on a tangent not to be seen again. So, you should prepare your tons of points, but start with only one... (And by all means, mention his silence when being rightfully accused of censorship by RonLar :-)) larronsicut fur in nocte 13:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely right. When debating with Andy, I was always tempted to write a giant response pointing out all his errors. But when I did, he'd write a dismissive reply to whatever was my least interesting point. The best way to get him to make a fool of himself was to answer with only a sentence or two each time. Since Ed is dumber still and has an even shorter attention span, I assume this holds true talking to him as well. Pick the one sentence that he'll be most hard-pressed to respond to, and post that and only that. --Benod (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
AugustOimg seems to use this tactic on Aschlafly at the moment: I like reading this stuff :-) larronsicut fur in nocte 14:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, my point was to dash the minefield and not step on anything. Andy and Ed especially dislike walls of text, but they also dismiss things that are too short and without evidence, links, proof, etc. Any reason to ignore someone. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Pull a Kenneth. Archive everything except his section and then stick a speedy delete template on your talk page with the reasoning of "my castle". -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

lol. That'd be funny, and don't forget to {{speedy}} the archive, too. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actual reply[edit]

Liked it! Short, and with a Ken-like promise of things to come :-) I was especially pleased that you mentioned the "Censorship at Conservapedia" section, and therefore not really surprised but mildly annoyed by Ed Poor's answerimg:

I don't have any more time for guessing games than you do. Is RonLar planning to provide a diff?

Anyway, welcome back. It's good having you around. --Ed Poor Talk 18:24, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

  1. Obviously, the diffs are deleted at Conservapedia. That's why RonLar gave him a link to a screenshot for the now deleted
  2. As this includes a paragraph on Andy's text, Ed should have no problem to place it correctly in of the Solar System Archive_1#Instability of the Solar Systemimg

larronsicut fur in nocte 09:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And Ed, as you are reading this: try the following diffs

Even though they are deleted, they should be accessible for you! --larronsicut fur in nocte 09:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the house before the nightly lockdown ends, but would you like me to copypaste the part after the quote to his talk page later today? --Sid (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like that very much! larronsicut fur in nocte 09:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. I changed a few parts to have you addressing Ed directly. --Sid (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


Da fuck?img--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tsk, relax. It's a play on words. From the link:
"He was a 6' 3", 240 lb. guy with a black beard and a beer gut poking out from under his black Harley T-shirt. At about 7:30 AM, he roughly shook a nearby camper awake and demanded, "Are you a Jew?" The sleeper said, "No," and the big guy moved to the next tent, asking the same question. By the time he got to me, I was concerned, but I nervously answered, "Yes." He said, "Great! We need a tenth for a minyan."
here's some background.

22:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Reminds me a bit of those nasty Muslim suicide bombers nice Orthodox Jews on board an Alaskan Airlines flight. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I still don't get it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No this...[edit]

is what da fuck.img RatMaster háblame 01:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is really such a stupid thing. I use Android, because I like Google and I sort of have quiet contempt for the cult of Apple. Also, iPhone was restricted to AT&T for a looooooong fucking time, and there's a lot of people who didn't want to switch carriers. I've been with the same since I first had a cell, and I wasn't switching. For those of us making consumer choices based upon our own needs and budgets, we are hardly thinking of the ideology of our appliances. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ed has gay friends? Vulpius (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I spit-taked at that. This is the guy who says that gays either belong in a mental institution or a prison. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, they're claiming to be ex-gay, but not even Ed is that stupid. Mountain Blue (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"Your gay friends hate you." - Jon Stewart
"Now, there's nothing wrong with being gay. Some of my best friends are going to hell." - Stephen Colbert --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No, sorry, Ed "The Pink Swastika" Poor does not have any gay friends. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
So this means I'm conservative because I have an Android phone? I guess I must be verging on tea party because I'm an android developer as well. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Nazi! Ajkgordon (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
That Google Android is conservative is a particularly brilliant conservative insight since CP's Google article does little else but bash Googleimg for liberalism, Islasmism, Obamunism, blah blah blah. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I've had 3 Android phones going back to the G1, but I also stuck it to the man and put CyanogenMod on them. What's that make me? --Roofus (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I've never bought a smartphone. I suppose this means I'm still daubing the blood of ceremonial victims on cave walls, by CP standards? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Also note that Open Source = BOTP. DogP (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought open source = communism? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Liberals are bad tippers[edit]

Showing how conservatives are brilliant at scholarship and discerning useful information, Andy puts on MPRimg a random gossip website "listbait" about the worst celebrity tippers (I'm sure an exhaustive accounting was taken by the gossip rag) to say liberals are uncharitable. Does he look at this survey that shows Democrats leave bigger tips than Republicans (and Jews bigger tips than Christians)? No. The gossip list of bad tippers included some of the quantifiably biggest celebrity philanthropists in the world (very few conservatives on that list). --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine, her mother would never tip -- and would try to keep others from tipping, too -- because tipping "undermined management's authority over their workers." Real conservative approach to the question right there. B♭maj7 RATZINGER RATZINGER RATZINGER 15:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually tipping can be considered more conservative or anti-socialistic. It's used by business owners as an excuse to justify low wages, and it's demeaning to workers because it forces them to be slavish to customers to try and get money that they should get anyway for doing the work. So it's no wonder Andy supports it.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 16:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup - in Europe they pay their food service workers a wage they can live on, which makes tipping even more conservative since it's American. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This is purely apocryphal and probably an urban legend, but I've heard restaurant workers consider the "Sunday after church" crowd the worst tippers. MDB (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Always tip in cash, that way the waiter doesn't have to report it and thus have a portion taxed away. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I actually once asked a waitress about that and she said it doesn't matter. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It is unfair in a lot of ways. Say you're in a restaurant and your steak is all burnt. That's going to make you less likely to leave a generous tip, but the chef still gets paid his wage and it's the service staff that lose out. Just because someone is customer-facing, their wages should not be put at the whim of a grouchy customer. Fair pay for a fair day's work.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 16:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be the employer who pays the fair wage, not the customer. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ignoring the usual debates about whether tipping is good or bad, or what one ought to tip, Andy's justification for putting it on MPR is pretty eye-opening itself. Anecdotes are very persuasive, if they're about how bad liberals are. Phiwum (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But who is he trying to persuade? The only people who are cheered/persuaded by these sorts of stories are other far right conservatives, and even they find CP a big joke, precisely for these sorts of numbskull attempts at polemics. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
MDB: Nothing apocryphal about it - I've heard plenty of waiters complain about the cheapskate after-church crowd. Apparently, their idea of a 'tip' is a pamphlet that LOOKS like a folded-up 20$ bill. --Gulik (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

My tipping story[edit]

I was once dining at a major chain restaurant, and the service was just awful. However, unlike other times I've gotten bad service, the waiter knew he was doing a bad job, was sincerely apologetic, and wanted to do better. (He said something like, "I suck I suck I know I suck I really really suck".) When he came to collect the bill, I said "keep the change." He walked away, then came back looking very surprised and sheepish, and said, "excuse me sir, but did you say 'keep the change'?" I nodded, and he backed away saying "thank you thank you thank thank you". What I should have told him is, "you did not give us good service tonight. But you know that, you were apologetic, not argumentative when we complained, and you seem to genuinely want to do better. I think that deserves some reward." MDB (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Good for you! I tip 20%, or 10-15% if the service is bad and the waiter acts like I'm the problem. I would have given 20% in this scenario. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't tip at all if the service is bad and the waiter acts like I'm the problem. And if a cabby does nothing but drive I don't tip either. Does that make me a bad person? Ajkgordon (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's kind of lame. These are poor people you are shafting, not the middle class. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Shite. Decent service isn't complicated: make the customer feel welcome and be polite. If a waiter/waitress can't even manage that, then they don't deserve a damn thing. --Robledo (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't tip on tax, and I only tip incrementally for booze. I triple the tax (so approximately 20% of the subtotal) and deduct for any perceived flaws of the service. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Like a lot of college women, i've ben a waitress and know how fucking hard the work is at times. and how shitty customers can be. I've watched people be demanding of service that it's impossible to provide, blamed the wait staff if teh food is bad, etc. I can tell teh difference between "we are slammed and i'm trying but services is sucky" and "I don't really give a shit about my job or you, so the services is sucky". Just cause i hate math, i do 2 dollars per person at family resturants (6-12 dollar entrees). I will say, though, service in Scotland was horrible, second only to French service (but tip is built in, so too bad for you), but Ireland was wonderful! I always wondered if we just happened to hit 4 shitty resturants, or if it really was a cultural thing.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I will admit I've left minuscule tips for truly incompetent service -- however, I've also left very big tips for great service. My ex and I used to regularly eat at a Ruby Tuesdays, and there was one waiter we liked so much we asked to be seated as his table specifically -- we were even willing to wait longer to get him as our server. He liked us, too -- he had been there long enough he could "comp" customers, and we usually got our salad bar for free. I'd tip base on what it would be with the salad bar, and even then, it was a generous tip.
We liked him so much we wrote a letter to the local restaurant and the corporate praising him. The next time we were there, he asked if we were the ones who wrote it. We said it was us, and he thanked us -- he had been in some trouble there, and our letter got him out of it. He comped us our entrees, and only billed us for salads and drinks. I think, based on the actual bill, his tip was 100% that night.
On the other hand, I tip based on restaurant quality, too. We were once at a fine dining restaurant -- $50/person or more -- and the service was what you'd expect at Denny's. (As far as I'm concerned, your water glass at a restaurant like that should never be empty, and your bread should only be empty when you say "no more bread". I couldn't even get a water refill after asking.) I tipped, but not well. MDB (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I hear that. At a fancy restaurant, your expectations should be higher and, at certain places, they should be lower. I think it's fair to tip according to the realization of your expectations. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
My wife (who is a proud and very liberal Oregonian) always insists that we tip whenever we eat out. Given the fact that we get great service because she's an unholy terror when it comes to substandard anything at a restaurant I agree to her muttered assessment of how large a tip we should leave. I love me wifey. Darkmind1970 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd be interested in hearing from servers: can I justify being a total prick by leaving a great tip? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Tipping in Europe tends to be lower (cue "typical atheist" comments from CP). I usually tip @10% and am considered irritatingly generous by my friends. I've twice left a tip of precisely one penny. Each occasion was when the waiter (in one case) or waitress (in the other) had far more interest in chatting with friends than in serving us, and generally broke every rule in the good service book. OTOH, one of the best ever tips I gave was on the one occasion I ever walked out of a restaurant because the food was so bad. Having waited ages (in a virtually empty restaurant), the food turned up and was somehow cold and burned. The waitress did everything she could, including getting both the chef and manager at different points, and was the one good thing in an otherwise bloody awful experience. We ended up leaving some money for the bottle of wine we'd had while waiting and leaving her about the same amount and insisting it was for her and not the food. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I usually tip 20% or so, but it's not uniform. I don't have many expectations, and I really hate inconveniencing anyone. The instances that I've pulled back, they still get a decent tip - just not as good as I normally would. And those are cases when they've really taken their time getting anything done, or if they left us waiting for ten minutes in between delivering the check and picking up the credit card to pay it. However, my father, also liberal, and more set in his ways than I am, used to be a very poor tipper, until I explained to him that "Everybody has to make a living." My generosity turned him around, and he's gotten much better about it. -Lardashe
As has been said, 'tipping culture' is rather different here in the UK, but I don't mind giving a decent tip for good service, however I make a point of not tipping if the staff are shit - I don't think it's fair on good staff if shit staff get tipped the same. I also wonder why some jobs are considered tipworthy and others aren't. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I used to work at a theatre. When people are off-shift, they can bring one guest and see a film for free, and get some free popcorn. One day, one of the newish guys comes in with four of his friends, and starts paying for three of them. I told him to go on in; There were only about five other people in the theatre anyway (and money from ticket sales doesn't help our theatre at all, that all goes to corporate) and then gave them two huge buckets of popcorn (primarily because I'd made way too much and didn't want to scoop it all later.) A couple minutes into the show, one of my coworker's friends comes out, says "stick this in your pocket" and chucks a $100 bill at me. It was the single best shift I ever did there. Barikada (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I find that when I tip high or just be a decent person good things tend to happen to me in return. It's so rare nowadays that people are genuinely happy when you do them a favor expecting nothing in return. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
But Karma is bollocks - you're probably just cherry-picking good things and ascribing them to having tipped someone ;) That said, there's nothing bollocks about feeling good after tipping. ONE / TALK 08:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me...[edit]

...that tipping is a specific example of the wider problem of charity in general. I asked about it in the Saloon bar once - if I give to a charity like HelpForHeroes, am I giving the government an excuse to not live up to their responsibilities? Similarly, does tipping service staff give management an excuse to pay shitty salaries? The answer to both is probably "yes", but the culture is never going to go away so I'm not going to make a difference by being a bastard all on my own. ONE / TALK 08:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And behold, the prophecy is fulfilled![edit]

Way to refute BradB's point, Jcw.img ... of liberals? (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I lol'ed. Can you imagine if Andy actually had to defend his claims? It'd be like CP but funnier. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fucking Q. a fucking E. and motherfucking D.! --ʤɱ libertarian 22:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Spread your wings and soar, Jcw. You'd still be flying under the radar if you were Icarus himself.--Brendiggg (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor, community builder (part 23)[edit]

Ed demands a writing plan from SeanSimg because Sean helped beef up the IE article like Ed asked. The problem was that the additions didn't fit Ed's bias. It's hard for Ed to believe that Sean could have innocently used Microsoft talking points. So hard that he must be sent on the fool's errand of the writing plan. Can't wait to see Ed be reasonable and ban him. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(Whoops, this section got ninja'd by Occasionaluse) A short while after Ken praised Internet Explorer on the main page, Sean expandsimg the "Internet Explorer" article.
Unfortuntely, the edits aren't demonizing IE enough in Ed's eyes, so the content discussion on the talk page opens... with a Writing Plan request.img
(As a disclaimer, the edit is slightly one-sided, and I'm one of the last people to defend IE, but Ed's going overboard there. This is a classic case that calls for collaboration and not the threat of the banhammer.) --Sid (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Writing plans are probably my favorite example of how stupid Ed is, and how stupid he thinks other people are. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Considering the information came from one source, which is microsoft, did Ed expect it to be a scathing criticism or?--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that Ed can get community relations so wrong without realizing it. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 21:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) It's hard to believe that this could be an innocent mistake from Microsoft. Bill Gates, submit a writing plan. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ed: Don't lecture me on how to fix problems i see in the article, I want you to do it for me!img--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fuck's sake, what a absolute cock. ONE / TALK 08:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken can't be in the panel[edit]

will be far to busy til alteast october, possibly not even thenimg--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Translation: "Oh shit, people are actually submitting radically different ideas (instead of simply supporting me), things are quickly developing into editorial reforms, and I'm not only responsible for this, but also expected to actually moderate this and work out a consensus that Andy may simply override with a wave of his hand? EJECT! EJECT!" --Sid (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I am glad I got this panel going
Ken the cp:Community organizer. Not surprising he'd crap out when the going gets tuff. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 21:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Didn't six months equal about a day in Kenworld? So two weeks equals.... roughly zero. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"The worse thing the panel could do would be to codify policy which would unnecessarily restrict the amount of future editors. " - Are you sure you wanna go with that reasoning Ken? We all know why you don't want any written policy you actually had to adhere to. --ʤɱ federalist 22:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Without Ken they'll just say the reformers are a bunch of parodists, block everybody, and delete everything. Deja vu. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Which doesnt exactly work for what, half of the people proposing ideas--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured he didn't have the imagination to figure out what the next step would be. So now we have a page of suggestions and no sysop buy-in for any real changes to policy. Good job, Kendoll. Keep on climbing that ladder and some day you'll be mediocre. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely Ken's finest hour, in grammatical terms, must be the introductory sentence on that page:

Below is the proceedings of the proceedings of the Conservapedia blocking policy refinement panel proceedings.img

Is it possible that Ken is under the age of twelve? --Horace (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Saved. I think.img Senator Harrison (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello? is that the Department of Redundancy Department? I'd like to file a complaint... LordSlug You want me to what's that? 05:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
No, you want the Redundant Department of Redundancy Department. It's down the hall. --Gulik (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken's idea of sysop review[edit]

What gall. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 23:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see the problem--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Could this beat "2 metres" as Ed's greatest article?[edit]

See Russiaimg. Fucking genius. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 23:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Atleast he didn't copy a page from some magazine like he did in CP: Bering Strait--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think any of them actually know what a fuckin' encyclopedia is. It's not a blog, Ken and Andy. It's not an exclusive club, Karajou, and you're not the bouncer. It's not a list of random shit that pop in your head, Ed. Seriously, that place resembles a mental ward.--Night Jaguar (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone needs to replace the text of that page with "...and die." Tell them I sent you. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this little gemimg. 'Bout damn time! I've been waiting for the liberal bias to be taken out of this contentious field. I wonder if editors like this are in some sort of backwater village of Romania, and just got confused andd thought they were on Wikipedia. Professor (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible that whenever Ed demands a writing plan he's actually asking for one for himself? He certainly needs the guidance. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 08:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
He also needs a lecture on how to quote. Thisimg made me go "WTF!" to the point where I had to at least addimg the most basic "Who said" info to avoid punching a kitten in its face. (Disclaimer: I don't own any kittens, no worries.) --Sid (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Homosexual intolerance? That's another one for the matrix. ONE / TALK 10:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't get the complaints. This way, if someone googles "see russia", they'll get a relevant, encyclopedic hit, right? I'm with Ed. This fills a great need, right? Right? Anyone? Come on, who here hasn't googled "see Russia" in order to learn more about Sarah Palin? Phiwum (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

SamHB is leaving, again[edit]

his message to Andyimg, <capture>and Edimg<with no stated reason.--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, his user page editimg seems to give at least a minor hint, though I dunno if that is the reason or just a reason. --Sid (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Ed is not pleased.img --Sid (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Unbeleiveable the bunker mentality and level of paranoia that's not only gripped that project, but has shaped it, and is now emblamed into unwritten site policy. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 19:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

MeganH ragequits[edit]

Parthian shotimg Imitates User188img — Unsigned, by: Previous comment unsigned by / talk / contribs

But a bit of a waste of time. Andy will pretend it's not happening, jpatt will ignore it, karajou will oversight it, ed poor will not even know it exists and kenny baby will come back to argue about whether PZ Meyers is overweight or not. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
What? No Godspeed? Anyway, good for MeganH. Chaosof99 (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a deep-cover parodist who got bored. Yawn. ONE / TALK 13:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Hit pretty much every RW description of the big guys. I'm with ONE. Phiwum (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Megan goes back for one more shotimg. Kinda unnecessary, that last shot was a good way to go out.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Kajagoogoo throws the baby out with the bathwater.img (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, Andy's baby. ONE / TALK 13:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Buggeration. I LOVED Counterexamples to Global Warming, that was becoming a truly excellent article, almost an all-time classic. Sigh. DogP (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Slightly sad but then again it shows that it takes a (possible) parodist to effectively self-out before morons like karajerk realise and start tidying up. Now karajerk, because I know you're reading this, try to find all the other parody which is there. I'll give you a hint. There is lots and LOTS of it. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
And LOTS MORE of it. It's everywhere. Trust no-one, trust no entries, Karajou. Your greatest work lies before you. DogP (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
His efforts won't be helped by TK taking most of Bugler's parody and making sure it stayed in main space. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Or by tk's parody for that matter, most of which has never been reverted has it? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It's back! Restored by esteemed parodist-of-the-manor DouglasA. ONE / TALK 15:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Karajou, since you're reading, there are still many parodists at CP. In high places. Be paranoid! Ken is secretly one of us and is waiting to for the right moment to turn on you. Strike first. Oh my God, look behind you! --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


"Groan" is clearly archaic. The word is rarely used anymore, and not with the meaning that it formerly had. "Complain" is used instead today.[1]img

Wow! Who knew? I guess that seeing as I still say "moan and groan" I should start writing "ye olde magickal type of writing device, verily forsooth!" --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight -- both Hitler & Andy Schlafly rewrote the Bible? I don't think I've read that anywhere other than Cnonservapedia <groooaan>. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 16:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
How soon after Andy Schlafly began re-writing the Bible to fit his own heretical version of Christianity did you decide to no longer associate your real name with the project, Robert...oh, wait, was it NEVER? B♭maj7 RATZINGER RATZINGER RATZINGER 16:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
How would that matter to an atheist? RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 17:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
What?--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not like all of us didn't know, or could not see, that Andy Schlalfy fundementlly misunderstood the Christian teaching of the New Testament Gospel nor accepted the innerancy of scripture. Even Karajou, bless his ignorant self, knew that. Andy denied a fundemental precept of Christianity back before the Conservapedia:Great Purge -- that no sin was too great that it couldn't be forgiven. He even wrote an essay on it:
  • This disputed passage is inconsistent in style and sequence with the remainder of the Gospel of John. ... The answer lies in its liberal message...Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners.
This is pretty harsh, and I'd suggest, any baby Christian can see this. Look here:
  • .. the biblical story about the woman caught in adultery is not authentic. See Essay:Adultress Story--Aschlafly 00:43, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
  • If I can disagree with you, the adulterous story is authentic, and that due to the humanistic changes to the Bible made in Alexandria; people changed passages back then that they didn't like, just as they do it today. Karajou 00:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT) [3]
So it appears Karajou is still in bed with a heretic. But Andy Schlalfy, like Ken Demeyer and the cabal of Ratwikians, are not beyond the pale of God's love and Christian ministry. That's why I've hang around both places. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 17:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thats fascinating Rob, but... who cares?--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I think now he's been chucked off CP, we're fated to endure his non sequitur ramblings forever. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let me spell it in plain English: Andy Schlafly and atheists have more in common than I do -- neither beleives in the Bible. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 19:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
"RobSmith" (I see you don't use the proper naming convention), if you're arguing that people who thumb their noses at a presiding judge are not punished, that's wrong. I looked at your contributions and found a serious of insertions of the form [citation needed] or more obnoxious banners, so there's a 95% chance you're a victim of Professor values. You also refuse to accept that chivalry helps resist talk pollution. Whatever the mainstream media might say, I can tell with 95% certainty what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow. See if you can fool people elsewhere, because you're not going to fool anyone here, just as Dawkins didn't fool anyone at Berkeley for two years and at Oxford for over two decades. This is logic and there is nothing ironic about it.--Aschlafly 00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Cool, nolbody really cares though

Quote of andy's Words do change their meaning over time, and it's important to stick with the original meaning of the ancient text." course, he doesn't understand one lick of hebrew, and only the most scattering aspect of greek or latin that he acquired in some class he ADMITS to doing poorly in. so he knows the orgignal meaning, how? Oh, right, he "devined" it.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) edit con

Divining via hat seems to be a popular choice--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Fucking cementation, how does it work?[edit]

Karajerk manages to show for once and for all that he's absolutely clueless when it comes to geologyimg and can only gasp 'but... but... the Flood!"

The man really believes that bluster beats brains. --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"the flood/K-T extinction event" -- So now they recognize the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and the K–T boundary geological layer which was created from it (be curious to see how they explain away the rich amount of iridium, but I digress). I love how Creationists are forced to grudgingly accept more and more of the science they once tried to dismiss but couldn't as the evidence mounted. They are forced instead to try and rewrite the narrative to fit their magical stories; but no matter how hard you try, you cannot fit a square peg through a round hole, not without wrecking one or the other,or both. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if K could watch this Non-fossilized human footprints buried in mud. Or this They (footprints) turn up in mud all round the British coast. Sphincter (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing funnier, or sadder, than two creationists arguing. Or at least one creationist and a parodist pretending to be one. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It's people like Karajou that make me realise there's no point trying to have a discussion with creationists. They will always refuse to acknowledge any of the facts you give them and simply fall back on standard, easily-disproved-to-anyone-but-a-creationist lies. It's pathetic. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately, SamCoulter is now blockedimg for a full year. Why? He dared to removeimg a few Counterexamples to Evolution. Did you know that Creationists tend to win Creation/Evolution debates? Now you know why ;) --Sid (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, blocked by DouglasA. Congratulations agent douglas (who is running him now anyway?), the 5th column strategy is definately working there. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Historical awareness fail[edit]

Dmorris to Human: "Hahaha, ignore the rambling idiot Rob, and welcome back to the great and fair Conservapedia!"img --Sid (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm --ʤɱ digital native 22:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

connection problems to CP[edit]

Is anyone else having problems connecting to CP? My connections keep timing out...

18 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 17006ms

άλφαTalk 01:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ping seems really hit-or-miss for me right now, but browsing the site seems to work at the moment. Might be a fluke? --Sid (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't access it through any browsers, either, at least none of the ones I have on my system (so... Opera, Chromium, FF, IE, Elinks) and I haven't been able to access it all day. Admittedly I've only tried about once every 4 hours, so maybe it's just sporadic for me and I have terrible luck. άλφαTalk 01:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(Off topic rant) Ping uses the ICMP ECHO feature, unfortunately in a misplaced attempt at security many sites block ICMP ECHO or indeed the entire ICMP system (which is needed to make lots of other useful stuff work properly). Considering how complicated a modern web site is and how relatively small the ICMP attack surface is, you might think of this as being like running an airport security service in which travellers are obliged to fly bald because hair could conceal a dangerous weapon, while at the same time their carry-on luggage is absolutely never searched. (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
CP hasn't however, obviously:
--- ping statistics ---
16 packets transmitted, 16 received, 0% packet loss, time 15004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 226.908/228.730/231.443/1.326 ms
Eye on the ICR talk, or type, or whatever... 01:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It took a good 30 minutes to get onto rW for me. Did give me an excuse to take a screenshot of the current firefox though.--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Me too for RW, but Cp was ok. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 03:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Ping statistics for
Packets: Sent = 16, Received = 16, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 70ms, Maximum = 84ms, Average = 74ms
It's fine for me, but RW was down for me for a little while earlier. --Roofus (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess Mrs. Karajou Karajou's domestic partner ain't puttin' out these days....[edit]

...'Cause Mr. Karajou is ANGRY today. Not only did he go postal on Robert, he also has been contacting ISPs:

13:59, 17 August 2011 Karajou (Talk | contribs) unblocked (Talk) ‎ (ISP contacted) (*note, this is in Halifax
13:58, 17 August 2011 Karajou (Talk | contribs) unblocked (Talk) ‎ (ISP contacted)

--B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 20:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Mrs Karajou is an All Blacks fan! DamoHi 20:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a throwback to TK, he used to do that shit all the time. It's not like the ISPs give a flying fuck. TK would even try and find out where you work and call your job. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I remember those days well -- he called Trent's people, right? I still actually worry that my occasional socking there (or my profanity-laced tirades here) will end up in my faculty advisor's e-mail somehow. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 20:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Back in May someone discovered the address for the Rationalwiki Foundation as registered with the New Mexico Attorney General's Office was 9 Ward Av, Hamilton, NM 87106. There is no Hamilton New Mexico. There is a 9 Ward Av, Hamilton, Ontario which has been listed for years as the address to send donations to. Of course, Karajou wanted immediately to contact the New Mexico AG office, the FBI, and send in the Marines. I told him, after a quite lenghty back and forth, the AG's office would say, "oops, it's merely a typo," and told him to forget it, I was dealing with Ratwikians personally. About 6 weeks later, Karajou lost patience with my personal request and unilaterally took it upon himself to expose the Rationalwiki Foundation's fraud to the New Mexico Attorney General's Office. He reported back they told him it was a typo. Good job, again, Karajou. Great work. Your hatred of other human beings that God created has totally obscured you judgement and consumed what tiny bit of common sense God blessed you with in the first place. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 20:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
And its comments like that that got you blocked for 5 years Rob.--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is the fraud? Or am I missing something? Senator Harrison (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What's pathetic is that this is evidence of how consumed Karajou is with CP, that he thinks a state aparratus is going to give one damn about vandalism on a Wiki. Because the AG office has nothing better to do then answer this stupidity? Anger Bear - stop wasting taxpayer money! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
@Mikalos, I had to force the issues to bring about reform.
@Senator Harrison, a few sysops imagined the RWF lied on it's filing when in all likelihood it was an AG clerk typographical error.

I spent a whole Sunday afternoon on May 1 on this -- 40 emails were exchanged. Briefly excerpted:
Karajou: he's trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. Trent failed with us, but there's other suckers in the pond. And what he's done here is illegal. Big time. There's no such city, town, village, or anthill named Hamilton anywhere within New Mexico....I believe we have enough evidence to put a stop to this man, his minions, and shut down RW once and for all. But what we need to do is to contact the proper authorities which have jurisdiction in this matter so that they can do a full investigation, which in this case begins with the NM AG. They in turn would contact the Feds, the RCMP, and whomever else handles law between us and Canada. ...To paraphrase General Patton in 1944: "The Rats have put their head in the meat grinder, and we've got a hold of the handle."
Rob Smith: the NMAG would contact the RWF registered agent Charlotte Toulouse and say, "hey, there's a problem with your registration." She'd respond, "oops sorry, a typographical error," and that would be the end of it.
Karajou:Send the info to NM AG by the end of this week; let them begin the major investigations. On that level, they can make phone calls to the Feds, the RCMP, and McMaster U...
Rob Smith:Trent is well connected politically....I doubt we'd get much action or response from the Democratic Attorney General. A judge recently booted the New Mexico Attorney General from prosecuting a case for conflict of interest against the former Democratic Secretary of State (over ballot box stuffing, and closely related to the Bush White House US.Attorney firings). [Editors note, the same judge has since been arrested in his chambers for raping a prostitute and has resigned...only in New Mexico...].
Karajou:the Governor and Lt. Governor are Republicans; the AG is a Democrat. If laws are broken, the AG has to investigate. Since the individual in question - Trent - leans toward the Dem side of the fence, and since he may have political protection, an investigation would naturally have to be forced upon the AG by the Governor, either by contacting her directly or by sending the relevant documentation to the FBI field office in Santa Fe.
Rob Smith:The NM registration maybe little more than a typographical error that can be fixed with a stroke of the pen. It means nothing, and I mean nothing...

  • On June 20 Karajou reported to the sysop group:

Karajou:I checked with New Mexico authorities directly concerned with filing registrations, and it turned out that Trent actually filed the paperwork properly when he registered RW as a charity. The actual address he gave was to Hamilton, Ontario; the State of New Mexico website which lists the charities defaults to New Mexico when the address is searched. If I registered a charity there with my Tennessee address, I suspect it would default to New Mexico as well. So, the below address exists as a harmless typo...

My comment:It was at this point I figured the only way to get Karajou to listen is to post through WIGO. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 22:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn Rob, that’s fascinating. It’s steeped in intrigue. It almost reads like a Tom Clancy novel... oh who am I bullshittin’? Who cares? --Inquisitor (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hah, both of you were off in la-la land. I do like that Karajou wanted to call the FBI though. Ah, memories. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this video sums up my reaction to that--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This is Breaking News: Karajou wanted to call in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) as well. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 23:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok? That'll do pig, is my response to this "Breaking news"--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This gave me such a laugh! Thank you Rob. And Karajou - you are a fucking moron, but a delightful buffoon at the same time. Really good laugh. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


I've pretty much stayed out of all this, Mr Smith. But when you say "...only way to get Karajou to listen" you seem to forget that in the black-and-white world that Mr. K lives in there are no small crimes, typos, or mitigating factors: it's simply a case of Us versus Them.

Us=good, conservative, God-fearing Christians trying to maintain a web presence of People Like Us (which, as we all know, are in the MAJORITY) except we struggle against the Them, (whore who're bad, liberal, atheists) who just happen to be 90% of the Dirty liberal media...the True Media, the truthspeakers, are part of a remnant of conservative Christians who, though small in numbers are actually (somehow) in the vast MAJORITY!

Either you're with Us or you're a dirty, filthy, liberal-loving atheist who I'd as soon as shoot as block for five years.
Then again, (putting on mu metal hat), if the past few weeks haz been an elaborate ruse to get us to let our guard down and let you, Mr. Smith, into the inner sanctum, pity's the sake that we haven't got one.
Speaking as an ex-christian I will feel most comfortable with helping you out of other delusions but only if you see the need for yourself to do so: I would suggest that you go through whatever grieving process you need to go through and contribute mightily to this wiki (or Ameriwiki as I see you have been) and leave Andy Schlafly and Brian and Ms Ken and poor Ed Poor to themselves.


I love a good Angry Bear rant, especially when he thinks he can have us convicted. I am interested Rob. - π Moderator 23:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What are my chances of being granted asylum here, or should I try North Korea instead? RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 23:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You should go to Cuba where you will be hailed a national hero and given a token position in the country's parliament. - π Moderator 23:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
OK these are new details but essentially Rob is telling us what we already know that Karajou is a carbon-copy of a Hollywood thuggish military reactionary stereotype à la A Few Good Men. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 23:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the whole Trent having political connections and requiring the good Republican governor to have to lean on the corrupt Democratic attorney general was gold. - π Moderator 23:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The response is simple: Question: Karajou, you say "If laws are broken". Please state the laws that were broken. Answer: No laws were broken. The End. DogP (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob telling a story![edit]


Karajou:...There is NO such town or city named Hamilton anywhere within New Mexico. The link is part of New Mexico's Attorney General's office. The NM AG cannot ignore the fact that this is a clear case of fraud....the thing to do with it is to contact the NM AG. We're NOT the police, nor are we detectives. As civilians and AMATEURS, we could put ourselves in a position where we would be taken to a courtroom over violations of Trent's civil rights. The best course of action is to collect what we have, detail it in a letter directly to the NM AG, and use the word "alleged."...Detail several of the major attacks against us, specifying cyber-terrorism, threat, harassment, DDoS...
Rob Smith:...fundamentally, this is probably a civil matter....
Karajou:What ever is done, it must be done quickly. Trent is going to graduate with a PhD pretty soon, and as a man with a doctorate he's going to be taken at his word no matter where he's at, while the rest of us making "complaints" will be seen as crackpots. ...[RW] can do DDoS attacks with the Feds watching every step. Their investigation will also succeed in getting a court order to open up the above link [google group/rationalwiki].
Rob Smith:...The retiring head of the local FBI field office recently said, "New Mexico may be the most corrupt state in the nation".
Karajou:The governor is a Republican. How about contacting her with the details?...This is the Lt Governor, and he could be a powerful force in the investigation.
<redacted>:So who's going to be submitting this complaint? Karajou, Rob, <redacted>, or <redacted>?
Rob Smith:We need to present a coherent case, with evidence, who is responsible for DDoS attacks.
Karajou:In case the law doesn't want to get away from the doughnut shop, are there any conservative-leaning newspapers within New Mexico?
Rob Smith:Please, focus on Rationalwiki editor's, those we can identify, who are involved in DDoS attacks. Present what evidence we have , from our webserver, and theirs, who is involved Then we need what relevant criminal and/or civil laws may have been violated.

As to tax law violations, we need to focus on potential federal violations of RW's 501(c)3 status. The NM registration maybe little more than a typographical error that can be fixed with a stroke of the pen. It means nothing, and I mean nothing, in itself, apart from the larger issues of federal DDoS violations & tax law abuse. Then it only is supporting evidence to those larger issues. We risk loosing a valuable piece of supporting evidence of bad faith and fraud by separating it from those larger issues.

  • June 20 Karajou reports,

Karajou:To all concerned, I'm calling this accusation about the RW Foundation's New Mexico address without basis in fact... the below address exists as a harmless typo...

Analysis of the foregoing:As in the "TracyS is a sockpuppet of RobS", or the second time in his career he blocked more than 64,000 IPs to deal with one troll in Halifax, we have another illustration of a general pattern of Karajou's thinking. Motivated by an unforgiving spirit of vengeance, Karajou is all too quick to jump to a conclusion, demand immediate action, and let the facts sort themselves out later. I've seen this thousands and thousands of times, be it a simple revert, a block, an abusive comment to a total stranger, the FBI incident, or his claim I and PsyGremlin are the same user.

@To Andy Schlalfy: My God, think about it, Andy. Karajou wanted to call the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deal with a typo. And the perpetrator of the typo wasn't even Trent Toulouse, it was a clerk in the New Mexico Attorney General's Office. And I spent probably 3 hours trying to convince him to calm down and focus on what the real problems were. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 01:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

-nods my head in mock agreement- But what does it all mean man?--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Karajou jumps to conclusions. He's sees a typo and says, "The NM AG cannot ignore the fact that this is a clear case of fraud" and wants to call out the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Six weeks later, he admits I'm right, it's a typo. No different than his conclusion I was engaged in sockpuppetry. The only reason I post at WIGO is, he will not listen on private discussion lists, nor on CP talk pages. He will listen to what I say here. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 02:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Does it matter if he listens to you? Your gone for good from there, and frankly if your still wanting to get back in, or have any hope for that site, your destined for the men in white coats. And then we already knew Kara jumps to conclusions and is in general insane, you aren't proving much but some small laughs--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Seriously. You're gone from CP. The mere chance that you'd be allowed back in has been undone by your open posting here. Maybe, maybe in a year or so after some other sysops get the boot and/or leave for whatever reason, you might be able to fellate andy enough to get unblocked and work your way back up, although why you'd want to do so (other than TK-esque power games) is beyond me. Your general whining here, while entertaining, doesn't tell the people here anything that they did not already know: CP is hypocritical, insane, refuses to listen to reason, an idealogical bunker that allows no dissent etc... That is the entire reason for WIGO:CP existing in the first place. If your continued posting about problems at CP is simply a form of sniping back at them or revenge, that's understandable but kind of annoying; your apparent complete shock at your treatment by CP is bizarre and annoying considering people here have known that's exactly how CP functions for years. X Stickman (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Rob, getting kicked from CP Ken and Andy's Insane Blog was probably the best thing that could happen to you. Move the fuck on. Find yourself a rebound wiki. CP is only worth pointing at and laughing. Definitely not worth this. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"CP is hypocritical, insane, refuses to listen to reason, an idealogical bunker that allows no dissent etc... That is the entire reason for WIGO:CP existing in the first place." <-- If you look further back, I'd say that's pretty much the entire reason why RW exists. --Sid (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Trent is "well connected politically"? That is news to me. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

His buddy is running for Senate, but having some trouble (Washington Post: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (Wash.) notably declined to endorse Heinrich...). RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 00:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)